Congratulations people of Crimea

[mrswdk]

As much as certain Ukrainian protestors and American politicians have been behaving like the bad guys, it's a good idea not to respond by just going 'oh, okay, go Putin LOL good for Russia'. By supporting Putin you are supporting an illegal secession of territory (which sets a precedent in which international law and territorial integrity mean shit) and politics that hark back to the era of imperialism (an era which ultimately led to the First World War).

However you feel about what 'the West' has been doing up until now, Russia's current behavior in Crimea is definitely way overboard.

However I think we can both agree that Russias current actions, have occurred because of instigations from the West/EU. Russia would not have had an excuse to step in like it has, without the coup occurring. If the initial referendum had been held I think US would be justified, but currently we (politically) are reaping what we sow.

So does Western support for the initial protests make Russia's current actions acceptable or are they still unacceptable?

[rishaed]

As much as certain Ukrainian protestors and American politicians have been behaving like the bad guys, it's a good idea not to respond by just going 'oh, okay, go Putin LOL good for Russia'. By supporting Putin you are supporting an illegal secession of territory (which sets a precedent in which international law and territorial integrity mean shit) and politics that hark back to the era of imperialism (an era which ultimately led to the First World War).

However you feel about what 'the West' has been doing up until now, Russia's current behavior in Crimea is definitely way overboard.

However I think we can both agree that Russias current actions, have occurred because of instigations from the West/EU. Russia would not have had an excuse to step in like it has, without the coup occurring. If the initial referendum had been held I think US would be justified, but currently we (politically) are reaping what we sow.

So does Western support for the initial protests make Russia's current actions acceptable or are they still unacceptable?

I guess the answer depends at what you look at. If you are looking from a self-determination kind of view the People of Crimea have overwhelmingly "self-determined" to be annexed by the Russians. Of course since the West instigated the coup, our politicians will never admit the validity of Russia's Annexation. I digress however.
In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.
I go back to my Rabbit Trail now. If I take the American Revolution into account, what the British of the time certainly called the Colonial Rebellion or something like that, it shows that countries are made/lost through acts of force/violence. The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and more recently the Chinese Civil War in 1949 in which transferred power from the GMD Nationalist Party to the Chinese Communist Party. The same could be said about the American Civil War, only the South didn't win and create a new country. As the saying goes history is written by the victor.
The point is if the Russians were going to protect their interests in Crimea they were/are going to use some form of force to do so. If they had sent someone to go and ask the de-facto Ukranian government which used coup tactics against their ex-Prime Minister who favored Russia to please leave Crimea alone when they can't restore order in the streets by themselves... I imagine the same thing would have happened to him politically as what happened to the broadcaster who showed Putin signing the document that annexed Crimea.

[saxitoxin]

As much as certain Ukrainian protestors and American politicians have been behaving like the bad guys, it's a good idea not to respond by just going 'oh, okay, go Putin LOL good for Russia'. By supporting Putin you are supporting an illegal secession of territory (which sets a precedent in which international law and territorial integrity mean shit) and politics that hark back to the era of imperialism (an era which ultimately led to the First World War).

However you feel about what 'the West' has been doing up until now, Russia's current behavior in Crimea is definitely way overboard.

However I think we can both agree that Russias current actions, have occurred because of instigations from the West/EU. Russia would not have had an excuse to step in like it has, without the coup occurring. If the initial referendum had been held I think US would be justified, but currently we (politically) are reaping what we sow.

So does Western support for the initial protests make Russia's current actions acceptable or are they still unacceptable?

Acceptable. Russia chose to be indifferent to western machinations in Libya, and the result was the destruction of a nation that was incubating one of the greatest social experiments in human history. Libya was a treasure of the modern world, now reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble run by fanatics and warlords (the only way I can even process it is in knowledge that Saif al-Islam is still alive, for now at least); Russia has no choice but to declare, regardless the cost from an ethical-moral standpoint, "never again!"

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

[GoranZ]

As much as certain Ukrainian protestors and American politicians have been behaving like the bad guys, it's a good idea not to respond by just going 'oh, okay, go Putin LOL good for Russia'. By supporting Putin you are supporting an illegal secession of territory (which sets a precedent in which international law and territorial integrity mean shit) and politics that hark back to the era of imperialism (an era which ultimately led to the First World War).

However you feel about what 'the West' has been doing up until now, Russia's current behavior in Crimea is definitely way overboard.

However I think we can both agree that Russias current actions, have occurred because of instigations from the West/EU. Russia would not have had an excuse to step in like it has, without the coup occurring. If the initial referendum had been held I think US would be justified, but currently we (politically) are reaping what we sow.

So does Western support for the initial protests make Russia's current actions acceptable or are they still unacceptable?

I think that the question is not if Russian actions are acceptable or not. The question is more if they are forced to do that or not. Currently Russia doesn't have many options except to do what was done(Crimea has strategic location for Russia). Whats interesting more pressure Western powers make on Russia the bigger are the chances for Russia to overrun South Eastern Ukraine... or even whole Ukraine. The chances that West will military intervene in Ukraine crisis are practically non existing, so most likely there will be some economic sanctions that will also heavily hurt EU's economy, and might trigger another world economic crisis. Regardless what will happen Russia is forced to reduce its cooperation with EU's countries and to turn towards Asia, and when that will happen there will be another cold war. I presume this will happen in 5 to max 10 years.

P.S. Only an imbecile can consider that hunting for bears next to its lair is easy task.

[Pope Joan]

Russia is the great evil in the world today.

IMHO, it is more like a misbehaving regional power. Economist has a great leader on why it is dangerous what Russia is doing:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599346-post-soviet-world-order-was-far-perfect-vladimir-putins-idea-replacing-it
To the Economist credit their main feature this week is next to useless, full of unverified claims and liberal twaddle.

[Baron Von PWN]

That is the picture of Putin's Russia. A nation that has shed the pretty camouflage and is admitting that pillage and plunder are its highest values. The greatest pillager and plunderer of all time is still openly idolized.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You know that's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at why Russians still admire Stalin.

Ask any Russian and they will tell you Stalin was a bad motherfucker, who did terrible things, however they will likely throw in "but he did great things for the country".

How can Russians admire a man who killed millions of their compatriots?

#1 he is seen as being responsible for victory in "the great patriotic war" or WW2 as we call it. This is probably the most important event in Russian history to date, nothing else has so affected the Russian psyche. In Russia it seen as a great triumph for their nation a time when all peoples from all corners of the USSR joined together and sacrificed everything for victory. They also acknowledge that terrible things were done during this time, but they see them in the light of "At the time they thought it had to be done to win the war".
#2 tied into #1 somewhat. Stalin is seen as the one who made Russia a superpower. He won the war, he transformed a backwards absolute monarchy into an industrial powerhouse.
#3 He is the only unambiguously(setting aside morality) successful Russian politician, other than Lenin, in the last century or so. I say unambiguously successful, as the Soviet Union was unquestionably far more powerful, in almost all ways, at the end of his rule than at the beginning. Khrushchev is seen as a foolish bumbler nicknamed "Mr.Cornman" his name is similar to the Russian word for corn and he pushed corn as a wonder plant, Brezhnev is just meh, Gorbachev a disaster, Boris a bumbling disaster.

I find it highly ignorant to dismiss Russians admiration of Stalin as them simply valuing "a plunderer". May as well call Americans veneration of Washington a love of tax evasion, or of Jefferson a love of oppressing blacks. Both completely ignore what is actually admired, and what was accomplished.

[Baron Von PWN]

Here is a translation of Putin's speech on the anexation of Crimea. pretty interesting read. http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889


also this is very good article on the west's reaction to Russia's moves.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/916 ... ike-fools/

Definitely a very good article, although I disagree with the second last paragraph (as I've mentioned here in my last post).

International law says ‘territorial integrity’ must be preserved and Crimea shouldn’t join Russia without Kiev’s say-so. But the UN Charter also enshrines a right to ‘self-determination’ — a right which Crimeans, for all the finger-pointing about a rigged ballot, have expressed in no uncertain terms.

This is the paragraph in question. What do you disagree with?

Do you think Crimeans as whole do not wish to be a part of Russia?

[mrswdk]

Libya was a treasure of the modern world

What exactly was it that made Gaddafi's Libya a 'treasure'? The blatant official funding of terrorism or the brutal political repression?

As for the other responses: 'the West' has certainly behaved badly, but that does not excuse Russia from engaging in 'eye for an eye' bully tactics. Both sides need to back off, allow the scheduled Ukrainian elections to take place without foreign interference and then let the country decide its own fate within constitutional and legal limits. What the bozos from America and the USSR should not be doing is engaging in a game of escalating tit-for-tat and then trying to justify it by pointing fingers and saying 'he started it'. I believe I was six when I learned that that isn't an acceptable excuse for anything.

[BigBallinStalin]

Russia is the great evil in the world today.

IMHO, it is more like a misbehaving regional power. Economist has a great leader on why it is dangerous what Russia is doing:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21599346-post-soviet-world-order-was-far-perfect-vladimir-putins-idea-replacing-it
To the Economist credit their main feature this week is next to useless, full of unverified claims and liberal twaddle.

That's why I don't read the Economist.

[saxitoxin]

Libya was a treasure of the modern world

What exactly was it that made Gaddafi's Libya a 'treasure'? The blatant official funding of terrorism or the brutal political repression?

I'm unaware of any court that determined Libya had engaged in terrorism as a matter of state policy. Libya acknowledged providing training and materiale to a very small number of groups seeking freedom, like the Irish, though even then was second to U.S.-based Irish relief groups like NORAID.

I'm unaware of any brutal political repression in Libya. It is true that, due to constant threats by the west, a variety of self-defense measures were necessary. However, I sincerely doubt any security measures were undertaken in Libya that were more extraordinary than those taken in the UK during WW2.

[Qwert]

Libya was a treasure of the modern world

What exactly was it that made Gaddafi's Libya a 'treasure'? The blatant official funding of terrorism or the brutal political repression?

As for the other responses: 'the West' has certainly behaved badly, but that does not excuse Russia from engaging in 'eye for an eye' bully tactics. Both sides need to back off, allow the scheduled Ukrainian elections to take place without foreign interference and then let the country decide its own fate within constitutional and legal limits. What the bozos from America and the USSR should not be doing is engaging in a game of escalating tit-for-tat and then trying to justify it by pointing fingers and saying 'he started it'. I believe I was six when I learned that that isn't an acceptable excuse for anything.

This its problem with West, they open pandora box with Kosovo, and still continue to make troubles.
They also try to bombard Syria, like they bombard Libya, but this time Russia are enough of Western forced "democraty"

Teritorial Integrity and sovereignty of all countries need to be respected,unfortunately west first start to make this changes, and create precedent , make double standards. Now you have new rule, where one minority in any country, can decide to secede , and with oppinion from International Court of Justice, this its not against UN chapter.

almost forget
Long live an independent Republic of Lakotah!

[AndyDufresne]

Mumbledy bumbledy

Long live the Republic of Qwert! May he throw off the shackles of his oppressors, and rise like a phoenix! Maps for all, he'll cry. Maps for all!


--Andy

[DoomYoshi]

Libya was a treasure of the modern world

What exactly was it that made Gaddafi's Libya a 'treasure'? The blatant official funding of terrorism or the brutal political repression?

I'm unaware of any court that determined Libya had engaged in terrorism as a matter of state policy. Libya acknowledged providing training and materiale to a very small number of groups seeking freedom, like the Irish, though even then was second to U.S.-based Irish relief groups like NORAID.

I'm unaware of any brutal political repression in Libya. It is true that, due to constant threats by the west, a variety of self-defense measures were necessary. However, I sincerely doubt any security measures were undertaken in Libya that were more extraordinary than those taken in the UK during WW2.

I can both pronounce and spell Churchill.

Can you spell Qaddafi/Gaddaffi/q'Addavi?

So, being not worse than some other random collection of policies makes one a treasure. I like how you actually ignored the question completely there.

[rishaed]

In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.

MRSWDK.... I'm still waiting for my response to my inquiry here....

[mrswdk]

..

Well let's go with those 'international norms' that you referenced.

[mrswdk]

Libya acknowledged providing training and materiale to a very small number of groups seeking freedom, like the Irish

I believe the Republic of Ireland already had its independence by the time Gaddafi came to power.

[Pope Joan]

In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.

MRSWDK.... I'm still waiting for my response to my inquiry here....

IMHO, "not acceptable" means not acceptable for the EU/US (the west) as a matter of principle in the international law. The things that are not acceptable are

1) Russia's walking away from the 1994 Budapest treaty on a false pretext that the Ukrainian revolution "changed" the Ukranian state;
2) the speed and the conduct of the Crimean referendum.

I dont we should give a damn whom Crimea belong to.

[rishaed]

In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.

MRSWDK.... I'm still waiting for my response to my inquiry here....

IMHO, "not acceptable" means not acceptable for the EU/US (the west) as a matter of principle in the international law. The things that are not acceptable are

1) Russia's walking away from the 1994 Budapest treaty on a false pretext that the Ukrainian revolution "changed" the Ukranian state;
2) the speed and the conduct of the Crimean referendum.

I dont we should give a damn whom Crimea belong to.

The problem is that we bend our own rules when it suits us. Snowden has officially evidenced that to the world. As far as the U.N. goes i believe that Goranz has effectively documented the problem there in an above post. Therefor Internationally speaking, the norm has been from my perspective in the past 10-15 years that U.S. throws their fingers in a bunch of pies everywhere, and ignores repercussions, while the rest of the international community has to put up with whatever our politicians end up doing internationally. (Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples of this). And yet places like Rwanda where genocide was happening gets ignored for much to long as politicians try and decide if "genocide" is occuring. And our politicians throw a temper tantrum every time somebody does something we don't like. I don't see this going on for much longer with places like Russia and China growing as powers.

[mrswdk]

China is growing and will at least become a dominant force within its own region. Russia's only power is its SC veto.

[GoranZ]

In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.

MRSWDK.... I'm still waiting for my response to my inquiry here....

IMHO, "not acceptable" means not acceptable for the EU/US (the west) as a matter of principle in the international law. The things that are not acceptable are

1) Russia's walking away from the 1994 Budapest treaty on a false pretext that the Ukrainian revolution "changed" the Ukranian state;
2) the speed and the conduct of the Crimean referendum.

I dont we should give a damn whom Crimea belong to.

You clearly dont understand current Russia, you still consider that Russia is stuck in Yeltsin time Russia doesn't care about what West(or you) thinks or feels about Budapest treaty or Crimean referendum. West send tons of politicians in Ukraine last year to undermine legitimately elected government, after which they didnt honored February agreement, nor the new Ukraine government honored its obligations for Russian Language in Crimea. So it seems that Russia will only care about their interests from now on. And they will do everything in their power to fulfill them.
On top of everything Russia or Russian people are not afraid from the West. But if you are naive enough you can still consider that they are afraid. Anyway your naiveness is your problem not mine

China is growing and will at least become a dominant force within its own region. Russia's only power is its SC veto.

Are you sure? I think that you are not... Nazis thought the same as you, and Napoleon before them. Both Germans and French were military superior but learned the lesson that they can not win the hard way.

[Pope Joan]

In terms of "Acceptable" and "Politically Correct" are two terms that I will never use based off of the fact that they are relative terms that are constantly changing based off of societal, cultural, and international norms. Please define what you are using to determine "acceptable". For instance the Russians view what they did as totally acceptable, while the West is denouncing it.

MRSWDK.... I'm still waiting for my response to my inquiry here....

IMHO, "not acceptable" means not acceptable for the EU/US (the west) as a matter of principle in the international law. The things that are not acceptable are

1) Russia's walking away from the 1994 Budapest treaty on a false pretext that the Ukrainian revolution "changed" the Ukranian state;
2) the speed and the conduct of the Crimean referendum.

I dont we should give a damn whom Crimea belong to.

The problem is that we bend our own rules when it suits us.

Exactly, but I was just answering the question of what is not acceptable. The west made several holes in the rules (Kosovo, primarily) but Russia drove a tank through it.

You clearly dont understand current Russia, you still consider that Russia is stuck in Yeltsin time .

I am afraid I do once upon a time I was a little Russian girl...

West send tons of politicians in Ukraine last year to undermine legitimately elected government, after which they didnt honored February agreement, .

Yes, agree, the west behaved like headless chickens by recognizing the revolutionary government. They must have insisted on "national unity" government... but what do you expect from Harvard lawyers and Eton posh twats?

So it seems that Russia will only care about their interests from now on. And they will do everything in their power to fulfill them. On top of everything Russia or Russian people are not afraid from the West. But if you are naive enough you can still consider that they are afraid.

Dont equate Russians with Putinists, and as if Putin ever cared about anything but himself...

I am still not sure why you are raising these, mostly valid points. I explain why it is not acceptable. It is a separate question what ought to be done about it. And it is a third question what western leaders will do about it.

[Qwert]

goranz
You clearly dont understand current Russia, you still consider that Russia is stuck in Yeltsin time Russia doesn't care about what West(or you) thinks or feels about Budapest treaty or Crimean referendum. West send tons of politicians in Ukraine last year to undermine legitimately elected government, after which they didnt honored February agreement, nor the new Ukraine government honored its obligations for Russian Language in Crimea. So it seems that Russia will only care about their interests from now on. And they will do everything in their power to fulfill them.
On top of everything Russia or Russian people are not afraid from the West. But if you are naive enough you can still consider that they are afraid. Anyway your naiveness is your problem not mine

AndyDufresne

Goranz wrote: Mumbledy bumbledy

this its short oppinion of any post who are not pro-US

[GoranZ]

You clearly dont understand current Russia, you still consider that Russia is stuck in Yeltsin time .

I am afraid I do once upon a time I was a little Russian girl...

What happen you forget how will Russians react? Or Russians are not your people?

West send tons of politicians in Ukraine last year to undermine legitimately elected government, after which they didnt honored February agreement, .

Yes, agree, the west behaved like headless chickens by recognizing the revolutionary government. They must have insisted on "national unity" government... but what do you expect from Harvard lawyers and Eton posh twats?

To honor their word, so others will respect them.
1. EU/US representatives actively undermined Ukraine's legitimate government.
2. Not holding to February Agreement.
3. Removing Russian as official language in South-Eastern Ukraine.
=
1. Russian intervention in Crimea.

If current Ukrainian government does something else that Russia wont like, next equation will be "Russian intervention in South-Eastern Ukraine". I guess Harvard should immediately add another course "Relations with Russia" and call all its former and current students to it

So it seems that Russia will only care about their interests from now on. And they will do everything in their power to fulfill them. On top of everything Russia or Russian people are not afraid from the West. But if you are naive enough you can still consider that they are afraid.

Dont equate Russians with Putinists, and as if Putin ever cared about anything but himself...

I am still not sure why you are raising these, mostly valid points. I explain why it is not acceptable. It is a separate question what ought to be done about it. And it is a third question what western leaders will do about it.

Putin's actions in Ukraine is supported by ~90% of Russian population, thus the equation. On the other hand EU/US politics towards Ukraine is supported by 15-20% of EU/US population. Anyway residence of EU consider Ukraine as land with heavy Russian influence.

What will western leaders do in case of Russian intervention in South-Eastern Ukraine? Mostly talk and maybe few economic sanctions but every economic sanctions will fade away from 1-st of September 2014(By then the gas must start flowing 24/7 threw Ukrainian pipes towards EU). Even US secretary Kerry was threatening with much harder response for Crimea's merger with Russia but in the end he chicken out.


For those that dont know... How much common Ukrainians and common Russians are close. This is the picture of the Ukrainian and Russian solder killed in Crimea few days ago by a sniper from Western Ukraine hired by the new Ukrainian government. I posted a video about the event.

Soldier on the left side is the Ukrainian soldier, soldier on the right was member of Russian Cossack Militia. The one in the middle is Ukrainian, and there was commemoration for both soldiers. There are 3 flags in the back of the room, Crimean, Russian and Ukrainian. Also both soldiers were buried together. I guess this wasn't mentioned by any western media(or Al Jazeera).

For now Putin is playing well, and saving a lot of lives, hopefully he will continue with the bloodless actions. Anyway we cant expect the same from the Western politicians who are quite blood thirsty.

[Jmac1026]

China is growing and will at least become a dominant force within its own region. Russia's only power is its SC veto.

Are you sure? I think that you are not... Nazis thought the same as you, and Napoleon before them. Both Germans and French were military superior but learned the lesson that they can not win the hard way.

Wait what?

Napoleon lost the war because he had shitty judgment and got caught in fucking Russian winter. Germany, however, was not "militarily superior". The USSR lost some early parts of the war because they were not expecting an invasion from Germany and were still suffering from Stalin's purges years before. Once they got mobilized, Germany stood no chance.

Maybe you should refer to facts, instead of Hollywood depictions.

[Jmac1026]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you. Personally, I think Russia has become quite the power in its own right. I just think comparing Napoleon to the Nazi's is retarded.